1NR Policy Heuristic adv.

Ethics DA/Timeframe DoubleBind

Debate should be a discussion of ethical subjectivity and the best
way to spill up to affect things outside of the room- either the
harms of the 1AC are true in which case the death of literally
millions in iraq are inevitable before they get their hands on the
lever of power or their impacts are simply constructed to hold
the ballot hostage in which case you should disregard them
because it creates bad forms of knowledge production in which
debaters learn to prioritize the most unlikely cobbled together
internal link chains and scenarios so when they eventually
become politicians or political advisors they become karl
fucking Rove and say we should invade Iraq IN CASE there were
WMDs in there despite it being highly unlikely and causing
massive structural violence in the process

AT: Must talk about specific policies

They say discuss Specific Policies BUT:
OFFENSE: All of their evidence is just descriptive about what
needs to be done BUT Our Reid Brinkely evidence is predictive
about how discussions of larger institutions have not empirically
led to more activism from debaters on policies they research so
theres no uniqueness for your offense. This also proves that
your discussion doesnt lead to changing state policy so theres
no way they can weigh this offense against the K.
DEFENSE: Black people and specifically black women are forced
into discussions of their identity in so-called non-political
ways because of the way identity is mapped onto them and they
are excluded from the democratic discussions because they are
marked as irrational and loud, threatening and disruptive so
theres still no uniqueness for any of their offense- black women
have to discuss the way the debate community and the broader
world is violent to them because keeping quiet is what gets them
killed- thats Hartman. Your attempt to FORCE a properly
political discussion onto us is a link to the K because the slave is
disarticulated in deliberative democracy. Discussing particular
bodies itself is educational insofar that it equips debaters with
tools for analysis and thinking creatively about the world with
survival pedagogy as a Net benefit to our politics. Theres also a
litany of debaters who dont defend fiat or the state who go onto
PhD and law programs that require intense skill and training
that we uniquely provide. LBS in Baltimore prove all of your
policy making skill args arent contingent on focusing on policies
in this particular debate. I think they have to win that we
foreclose the development of critical thinking and analysis in
order to win that they have a unique claim to spill up to better
education. We can not discuss state policy in this debate and still
enable the TOOLS to deal with policy if theres any spill up
from their arguments itll be in YEARS and based on SKILLS,
not what they remember from shitty politics debates- even if
they remembered everything, the LAW would have CHANGED
BY THEN which proves the fiat double-bind argument I made
above

Theres a Politics of the Real DA that also functions as a link to

the K- our Bryant evidence says that political realism restricts
the capacity for political imagination in order to put a cap on the
boundaries of what we can think- for example the idea that we
have to conceive of reform instead of abolition, slow progress
instead of revolution etc. If the aff had been around in the 1960s
they would have told black women in the Civil Rights movementpush for SLOW CHANGE- anything too big will never happen,
and is too dangerous, only state politics can ever hope to change
anything- this captures their psyche within a white box- when
black women see the world as it is, the deaths of black trans
women and the slow death of racio-sexism on the news- this
causes a psychological pessimism that TANKS SOLVENCY for
political movements because they dont think ANYTHING CAN
EVER CHANGE- only the radical UTOPIANISM of our
alternative that demands that the world end that generates the
political power to change the world, to change particular
policies because it empowers people to disrupt the way the
world is ordered now- YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DREAM before
you can get out of bed in the morning to go vote- thats why the
Civil Rights Movement started with a RADICAL IMPOSSIBLE
DREAM because it could MOBILIZE populations- if they want
any spillover for their heuristic page to black people and black
women specifically they need the radicalness of the ALT.

AT: Cede the Political (Texture vs. Text of the law

distinction)
They say their
evidence but we are talking about a prior
question to the implementation of the law the aff is talking
about how we can change the TEXT of the law while we are
talking about how we can change the TEXTURE of the law- how
Law is carried out, enforced or not enforced, repealed or kept on
the books etc. is all determined by individual ACTORS and their
particular epistemological frames. For example, laws in the U.S.
prohibit differential pay based on gender and race yet
companies get a free break from being held accountable for this
because theres too much red tape for any court to prosecute any
particular company. Our argument is that the fluidity and
contingent nature of the law is evidence FOR US- it proves that
law can always be manipulated to damage black women if the
people in charge WANT TO which 1) they do now and 2) is an
impact level you havent come to grips with. Only an
epistemological change that starts with the way we conceive of
the law and of black women can hope to create lasting change.

AT: Isaac
Their utilitarian calculus presumes a perfectly rational subject
that knows EVERYTHING about the situation you are making
the decision about and is free of RACIAL and GENDERED BIAS
which is impossible- our argument about epistemological
frames COMES prior because it determines what subjects count
or dont count under their framework
Extend Weizman-the argument of choosing the lesser evil a)
presupposes you have the power to prevent extinction by giving
the aff a ballot which clearly doesnt happen b) justifies anything
that is one step below nuclear war- to the point where it becomes
counterproductive- the logic of Ill let 99 small bad things
happen to prevent one big bad thing ignores the NET BADNESS
of structural violence which outweighs and which your authors
are biased against

Burn Pits
Their Bonds evidence proves you focus on contingent violence
not ontological ones which proves the tradeoff between the aff
and the negative- your bonds evidence says the people who are
affected by burn pits are rendered vulnerable but that presumes
a capacity NOT TO BE VULNERABLE- this crowds out a
discussion of the violence that happens to black women because
they MAGNETIZE VIOLENCE- they attract violence simply for
being women and being black no matter what they do which
proves the capacity for vulnerability is ultimately a privileged
one you havent come to grips with
Their Kenny card about precarity links to our futurity argument I was
making above about the politics of the real because it says we need a future
politics focused on a material struggle to ensure greater protection- black
women dont need slow reformism but a utopian imaginary that refuses to
compromise to the demands of the political
Its game over on the Hajek and Dept of Veterans Affair
evidenceBurn pits not the cause- dust, chemical exposures all check and
burn pits never proven connection to illness- this is their article
HAJEK & REZVANI NPR reporters 2015 (Daniel & Arezou, NPR (National Public
Radio) reporters, Veterans Say 'Burn Pits' Created Toxic Clouds That Made Them Sick

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/18/455350571/u-s-veterans-burn-pitscreated-toxic-clouds-that-led-to-ailments) DR 16
One challenge for veterans is proving that burn pits are really the cause of their illnesses. "People have said that it's

this toxic
mix of tiny, tiny dust particles that are not related to the burn pits , that are
just related to the soil and the air in Iraq and Afghanistan, and often has
contaminants in it such as aluminum and iron and titanium so, heavy
metals," Kime says. "The burn pits are the most obvious visual reason to blame,
but it could be the dust, it could be chemical exposures, there could be a lot
of other issues going on." Last year, Congress ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to set up the Airborne
Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry. So far, almost 50,000 veterans have signed up. "It's not just necessarily burn pits. If
you feel like you're sick as a result of deployment, you can sign on to it," Kime says. "And it's supposed to be used to track and to try to get
some handle on the extent of the illnesses among this cadre." A statement from the Department of Veterans Affairs in response to NPR's
request for comment said, in part: "At this time, there

is conflicting and insufficient research to

show that long-term health problems have resulted from burn pit exposure .

VA continues to study the health of exposed veterans. The burn pit registry, which helps participants to become more aware of their health,
while helping researchers to study the health effects of burn pits and other airborne hazards, is one of several research projects currently
underway at VA."

Burn pit damage is minimal at best and not proven empirically

Dept of Veterans Affairs No date (U.S. govt dept, burn pits

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/PUBLICHEALTH/exposures/burnpits/index.asp) DR 16

research does not show

evidence of long-term health problems from exposure to burn pits . VA
continues to study the health of deployed Veterans. Health effects from burn
pit smoke Toxins in burn pit smoke may affect the skin, eyes, respiratory and cardiovascular systems, gastrointestinal tract and internal organs.
Burn pits were a common way to get rid of waste at military sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this time,

Veterans who were closer to burn pit smoke or exposed for longer periods may be at greater risk. Health effects depend on a number of other factors, such as the

Most of the irritation is temporary and resolves once

the exposure is gone. This includes eye irritation and burning, coughing and
throat irritation, breathing difficulties, and skin itching and rashes. The
high level of fine dust and pollution common in Iraq and Afghanistan may
pose a greater danger for respiratory illnesses than exposure to burn pits,
according to a 2011 Institute of Medicine report. kind of waste being burned and wind direction.